TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Intelligence Unit (AIU) of Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL), Nedumbassery received an information from CIAL screening staff, who were engaged in screening of checked-in baggage for departure, that they have identified a suspicious baggage. The baggage belonged to the detenu, Mohammad Seddiq Yousufi, an Afghan national. He was travelling from Kochi to Dubai in Emirates Flight No. EK 533. He was issued a boarding pass allocating seat No.11A alongwith checked-in baggage tag bearing No.EK28548. In presence of witnesses and detenu, one checked-in bag was examined and found to contain foreign currencies i.e. US Dollars and Saudi Arabian Riyals which were found concealed inside one sky-blue coloured electric rice cooker of make "Red cherry", one electric coil stove of make "Polomix G Coil Hot Plate" and 6 nos. of readymade shirts. On counting inventory, it was found he was carrying USD 14,18,650/- and Saudi Riyals 8,99,500/-. Total Foreign Currency was equivalent to INR 10,94,05,047.50/- (Rupees Ten crores ninety-four lakhs five thousand forty-seven rupees and fifty paisa only). On his personal search, he was found having INR 13,360/-, USD 200/-, UAE Dirham 190/- and Afghani curre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....video clips indicated his earlier involvement in smuggling activities and his association with two suspects viz., Azmuddin Nazamuddin and Khair Mohammad Akhtari. On 17.03.2018, he was found travelling in AI 933 to Dubai and on arrival at Dubai, he was seen going in a car with Azmuddin Nazamuddin; another video clip showed detenu alongwith Azmuddin Nazamuddin in a room; another clip showed Azmuddin Nazamuddin was counting bundles of US Dollars. 5. On 28.06.2018, department was permitted to have custody of detenu for two days as per order by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Ernakulam. His statement was recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act on 29.06.2018. According to him, whatever he had deposed on 14.06.2018 was true to best of his knowledge. Thereafter, he was produced before Additional Chief judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Ernakulam on 30.06.2018 and was remanded to judicial custody. His bail application which was filed on 06.07.2018 was rejected as per order dated 16.07.2018. Competent authority issued detention order dated 18.07.2018 under COFEPOSA Act, 1974. Subsequently, detention order was executed on 21.07.2018. 6. The Central Advisory B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ket, Commissioner of Customs, Cochin vide letter dated 12.11.2018 requested DRI, Delhi to further investigate the matter. In the meantime, on 01.10.2018, remand warrant was extended by ACJM (Economic Offence), Ernakulam till 14.10.2018. Detenu, however, was granted bail on 05.10.2018 on certain conditions including surrender of his passport and that he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. A show cause notice dated 05.10.2018 had been issued to detenu under Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 proposing confiscation of foreign currency valued at INR 10,94,05,047.50/- under Section 113(d), (e) and (h) of Customs Act, 1962 read with provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 and Regulations 5 and 7 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations Act, 2015 and penalty to be imposed under Section 114 of Customs Act. According to department, detenu had not replied to it so far. Complaint to prosecute the detenu under Section 135 of Customs Act had been filed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Kochi on 26.10.2018. He had also requested to release his passport as he did not have any other identity. According to department, further i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctivities is no basis. He relied on Moulana Shamshunnisa & Ors. v. Addl. Chief Secretary (2010) 15 SCC 72. 10. Ld. counsel on behalf of detenu, Mr. Shubhankar Jha has submitted that detention order dated 13.12.2018 is bad in Law as same does not give any cause of action to detain the detenu. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that no sufficient ground is found to detain the detenu vide confirmation order of Central Advisory Board dated 28.03.2019. Subsequent detention order is based on same facts and circumstances, therefore, instant detention order is bad in Law. 11. The Ld. counsel on behalf of detenu has pointed out that since detenu's passport has already been seized and same is in possession of Custom's Authority, therefore, question of detenu joining the prejudicial activities does not arise at all and detention order becomes bad in law. He relied upon Amritlal (Supra), Ibrahim (Supra), Smt. Gracy (Supra), Pebam Ningol (Supra), and Moulana (Supra) in his written arguments. 12. Per contra, Amit Mahajan, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, has submitted that before passing detention order, investigation was carried out by authorities and found detenu being involved in var....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is no finding whether facts in earlier detention order dated 18.07.2018 is identical to instant detention order, either party earlier had not approached the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, therefore, revocation of earlier detention order does not ipso facto bars passing the fresh detention order against the detenu. It is apparent from page No. 49 of present petition filed by detenu that detention order passed against the present detenu is on the basis of subsequent investigation carried out by authorities and on subjective satisfaction arrived at. 16. The contention of the Ld. counsel for detenu that representation has not been considered by the Advisory Board loses its significance as petitioner himself mentioned that the representation was sent to Delhi whereas Advisory Board was in Kerala. Moreover, in the hearing on 28.03.2019 before the Advisory Board, the detenu alongwith his counsel was present. Once the detenu himself alongwith his counsel was present before the Advisory Board and Advisory Board concluded the proceedings without detenu raising any such objection before them, the subsequent plea of ineffective representation evidently is an aft....